You are currently viewing a new version of our website. To view the old version click .
MDPIMDPI
Search all articles
by
  • Sibylle Hildenbrand1,
  • Joachim Graf1,2,* and
  • Martina Michaelis1,3
  • et al.

Reviewer 1: Anonymous Reviewer 2: Anonymous Reviewer 3: Ioannis Georgakopoulos

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Overall, very strong and intresting article regarding appropriate teaching techniques for medical students in regard to social sciences in medicine. Very few comments:

Introduction

  • While the first few sentences are very important in regards to social inequalities and the role of healthcare, they seem a bit intense when it comes to the true nature of the study. Only the last couple of sentences actually are relevant to setting up the study that follows. As the focus of the study is on social medicine skills - the first few sentences of the first paragraph should be changed in simpler language to discuss what these skills are and why they are relevant in medicine
  • Line 76 ‘focus ON the’

 

Materials & Methods

  • Section 2.2: Were these 5 topics the same for each cohort?

 

Discussion

  • Line 310, “PBL” is already explained earlier in the text, no need to spell it out again

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors
  1. The study includes four semester cohorts, the rationale for selecting these specific cohorts is not fully explained.
  2. The study compares PBL and PT groups; however, students could self-select topics, which might introduce bias (e.g., motivated students choosing certain topics).
  3. The methods mention a 24-item questionnaire but do not specify whether the tool was validated for reliability (e.g., Cronbach’s alpha) and construct validity.
  4. Mann-Whitney U tests were used due to non-normality, additional justification for effect size interpretation (Cohen’s r) should be given.
  5. The results provide effect sizes categorized as small, moderate, or high, but the educational significance of these differences is not deeply discussed.
  6. The finding that “graded return to work” yielded the highest learning benefit, while “work incapacity” was lowest, is briefly attributed to prior exposure. A more thorough discussion of why these variations occur and their implications for curriculum design would add depth.

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Thank you for your research! My comments to improve your manuscript are:

  1. The teaching formats should be more expanded (with more references) in the Introduction (section 1.2). Their role is not clear.
  2. A thorough literature review is missing. It is important to refer to similar studies.
  3. It is good to include how the assumptions of the ANOVA method were verified. It is also best to include some details regarding the distribution of your data.
  4. Although the research is underlined, research assumptions are missing. Therefore, results could be better discussed in line of clear research assumptions.
  5. The contribution of the study to Medicine should be better accentuated in the conclusion.

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors have addressed the comments accordingly.

Author Response

Thank you.